I prefer a leader who has a good decision-making process, even if his foreign policy instincts are skewed in a direction I don’t like, over a leader who has a bad decision-making process, even if his foreign policy instincts are skewed in a direction I do like.

Vote for the better bureaucrats! I’m inspired. Presumably, it all depends on the amount of the skew. That is, if Kerry believed in an approach to foreign policy that was different enough, Drezner wouldn’t vote for him even if Kerry’s staff featured a collection of excellent paper pushers. [Sandy Berger? — ed. Pushers, not stuffers nor stealers.]

Perhaps it is a common opinion in the academy that one should vote for the person with the “better decision-making process,” but it seems stupid to me. We want people who know how to run a meeting? Who make sure that everyone has read the latest copy of Foreign Affairs? Who organize their Powerpoint presentations well?

Of course, if the two candidates have identical positions, then you can use “process” as a tie-breaker, just as you could use looks or height or favorite color. But how often are candidate positions that similar. Moreover, whatever else you might think about Bush or Kerry, it seems hard to judge them as similar.

I can easily imagine Bush going to war against Syria or Iran (or both) in a pre-emptive fashion sometime in the next four years. I can’t imagine that Kerry would ever do such a thing. Perhaps this difference is a reason to vote for Bush. Perhaps it is a reason to vote for Kerry. But it seems suspect to think that one of these basic approaches is better (and Drezner leans more toward Bush) but to vote the other way because the staff work is better and/or more valued.

I’ll take a group of medocrities who actually listen to their staffs than supposedly brilliant men like Feith who simply block out any information that contradicts their assumptions.

Listen to the staff! The whole assumption that on the very big picture issues in politics (and life) more information and or better decision-making should lead someone to change their opinions is suspect. If you think that nationalized health care systems are best (and lots of smart people do), no amount of staff work is likely to change your mind. Nor should it.

Or course, when Drezner says “Listen to the staff”, or even “Do what the staff tell you to,” he is really urging the people in charge to follow the advice of the younger (often smarter) junior academics/think-tank folks that populate such positions in Washington — people very much like Dan Drezner.

In fact, he is really saying “Listen to me.”

Related posts:

2 Responses to “Drezner ’90 for Kerry”

Explosions says:

I think Drezner is saying that a more careful President might have, say, not let 380 tons of explosives run off into the DirkaDirkastan night. I think Drezner is saying that although Kerry is naturally conservative, maybe he’d think a little bit before he acted, and not believe wholesale the fabrications of weak intelligence and known rats like Chalabi. I think Drezner is saying that even a boring, stuffy jerk like Kerry is preferable to a wide-eyed fuckup like Bush. But maybe that’s just my spin.

I dunno, Kane. There is something to be said for achieving results. Even if you believe that overthrowing Saddam Hussein and creating a democracy in Iraq was a good idea, you still need to be able to carry out the goal. Attention to process is a key part of administration.

As an example, suppose a football coach wants to score touchdowns by throwing the ball long. Talks about it a lot, recruits a quarterback with a good arm, and devises some nifty plays. But suppose the same coach doesn’t pay any attention to the offensive line and the quarterback with the strong arm gets sacked repeatedly and the team keeps losing or at least not living up to its potential.

An athletic director might begin to consider hiring a coach who emphasizes the running game, but has meticulous attention to detail. The AD prefers throwing long (perhaps it attracts bigger crowds and more media attention for the university), but the poor execution on the offensive line has crippled the strategy of the long ball coach.

In an ideal world, the AD would find a coach who throws long AND pays attention to details like the offensive line. But Drezner thinks he is faced with an election between a long ball coach who is blissfully unconcerned about the offensive line and a meticulous three yards and a cloud of dust type of coach. He thinks the team stands a better chance of winning with the meticulous coach.

Process and execution are important. I disagree with Drezner on a number of issues and points, but his concern about execution strikes me as valid.

[Nor do I think that Drezner is angling for a DC job — if so, he would undoubtedly be supporting Bush.]